Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

SS Victoria v SS Quillwark

International Law Reports Cited authorities 1 Cited in 6 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date22 December 1921
Docket NumberCase No. 80
Date22 December 1921
CourtCourt of Session (Outer House)
Scotland, Court of Session, Outer House.

(Lord Hunter.)

Case No. 80
Owners of s.s. Victoria
and
Owners of s.s. Quillwark.

Jurisdiction — Immunity from — Immunity of Public Ships — Ships Engaged in Commerce — United States Shipping Board.

The Facts.—The s.s. Victoria, owned by the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, Limited, pursuers in this action, was damaged in a collision with the s.s. Athenic in the Panama Canal on November 12, 1920. It was alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the s.s. Quillwark, which belonged to the United States Shipping Board, a department of the Federal Government of the United States. In July 1921 the Quillwark was in the Clyde. The pursuers intended to arrest her but refrained from doing so on receiving from the defender's agents an undertaking to enter an appearance to the action and to pay any claim which might be established but reserving “all rights competent to the United States Shipping Board to object to the jurisdiction of the Court and the validity of the arrestment, in the same manner as they could have done if the vessel had been arrested here, and we had entered an appearance under protest, and you had released her under protest”. The pursuers now claimed £15,000 as the loss and damage sustained in the collision. The defenders pleaded that:

“1. The defenders not being subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, the action should be dismissed.

“2. Seriatim. The defenders being a Department of the Government of the United States of America, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the action should be dismissed.

“3. The Quillwark being the state-owned property of the Government of the United States, and the said Government not being subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, the action should be dismissed.”

The pursuers pleaded inter alia:

“2. The jurisdiction of this Court not being excluded (a) because of the terms of the Acts of Congress founded on, and/or on account of the uses for which the Quillwark was employed, the first, second and third pleas of the defenders should be repelled.”

Held: that the action must be dismissed. Lord Hunter said:

“The first plea in Law taken by the defenders is that the action ought to be dismissed as they were not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. The answer to that question admittedly depends upon whether or not the s.s. Quillwark was liable to arrestment in Glasgow.

“According to her certificate of registration, which is produced in process...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT